US Election 2012 - Who's it going to be?

[Dos_Box]

OK, I generally don't do politics, but as this is being reported as possibly being the closest election race in years let's put it to the vote (no pun intended!) and see where popular opinion is pointing.

[elsiegee40]

OK, I generally don't do politics, but as this is being reported as possibly being the closest election race in years let's put it to the vote (no pun intended!) and see where popular opinion is pointing.

We need a poll on this thread!

[LiamH]

Obama hopefully...

BBC News - BBC poll: Rest of world favours Obama was an interesting read

[LeMarchand]

We need a poll on this thread!

...and another one for who we want to win. Or at least an option like:

Romney - I'm already preparing for the coming holocaust.

[Max_Power]

Found this quite funny on BBC website.
"On the stroke of midnight, the first votes were cast and quickly counted in the tiny village of Dixville Notch in New Hampshire. They resulted in a tie with five votes each for Mr Obama and Mr Romney."

[synaesthesia]

It's apparently close. Really? Really, really? Mitt Romney? Masochists or just morons?
I suspect the latter - and probably mostly people who don't want Obama retaining.

The equivalent of the UK putting BNP in power because "we don't agree with what Cameron/Clegg did or what that other useless git says"

[localzuk]

It's apparently close. Really? Really, really? Mitt Romney? Masochists or just morons?
I suspect the latter - and probably mostly people who don't want Obama retaining.

The equivalent of the UK putting BNP in power because "we don't agree with what Cameron/Clegg did or what that other useless git says"

Its down to short memories. They seem to think that Obama should have been able to do everything he said he would, even though half of his term was hamstrung by a republican controlled senate etc... So every time he tried to implement something, they'd sit on it for ages, to prevent its passing or vote against it. Just look at the whole budget debacle over there!

[Flatpackhamster]

It's apparently close. Really? Really, really? Mitt Romney? Masochists or just morons?
I suspect the latter - and probably mostly people who don't want Obama retaining.

I think the biggest problem I have with this argument is the extraordinary disservice it does to thinking human beings. Is it really the case that everyone who votes for Obama is wise and has thought their position out well, and everyone who votes for Romney is ignorant and reactionary?

There are just as many reactionary morons who vote for Obama.

The equivalent of the UK putting BNP in power because "we don't agree with what Cameron/Clegg did or what that other useless git says"

Since neither Romney nor Obama have a credible debt management and deficit management program, rather more like the equivalent of the UK putting Milipede in to power instead of Cameron/Clegg.

It's a shame they can't both lose. Romney is a capable manager of a large company, but that isn't politics. A president needs to be able to build a team around him, not dictate. Romney will be a control freak, and he won't understand the limitations under which a president operates. It's not like a PM in the UK, who has theoretically limitless powers. Obama has already shown himself incapable of recognising the scale of the problems the US economy has. If he hasn't worked it out in 4 years, he's not going to work in out in 8. The US needs to cut spending, and it needs to cut it across the board, including defence. The man is mendacious and hides it beneath a veneer of charm, just like Blair.

[synaesthesia]

That's exactly it - in very simple terms, in a 2 devil race:

Better the devil you know, or
Lesser of the two evils.

There's no disservice meant to any particular party of person but with the above simplification in mind, how on earth could anyone actually vote for Mitt Stick?

[localzuk]

I think the biggest problem I have with this argument is the extraordinary disservice it does to thinking human beings. Is it really the case that everyone who votes for Obama is wise and has thought their position out well, and everyone who votes for Romney is ignorant and reactionary?

There are just as many reactionary morons who vote for Obama.

Since neither Romney nor Obama have a credible debt management and deficit management program, rather more like the equivalent of the UK putting Milipede in to power instead of Cameron/Clegg.

It's a shame they can't both lose. Romney is a capable manager of a large company, but that isn't politics. A president needs to be able to build a team around him, not dictate. Romney will be a control freak, and he won't understand the limitations under which a president operates. It's not like a PM in the UK, who has theoretically limitless powers. Obama has already shown himself incapable of recognising the scale of the problems the US economy has. If he hasn't worked it out in 4 years, he's not going to work in out in 8. The US needs to cut spending, and it needs to cut it across the board, including defence. The man is mendacious and hides it beneath a veneer of charm, just like Blair.

I dunno, he's done a pretty good job in my view over there. They've returned to growth, job numbers have increased significantly, people now have the ability to get healthcare if they have pre-existing conditions, he got the country out of Iraq. The evidence doesn't agree with you with the whole 'needs to cut spending' thing. And all that even though their legislature turned against him after 2 years (ie. switched to GOP controlled). So, he got a lot done in 2 years before being held back.

Cuts to defence? Have you seen what happens to a US politician who does that? They are basically out the door at their next election.

What's that old adage? You have to spend money to make money.

[Flatpackhamster]

That's exactly it - in very simple terms, in a 2 devil race:

Better the devil you know, or
Lesser of the two evils.

Another way to look at it is: This guy isn't working out, that guy may suck, but he might suck less than this one.

There's no disservice meant to any particular party of person but with the above simplification in mind, how on earth could anyone actually vote for Mitt Stick?

Again, if they're both rubbish, why not try voting a different way? What've you got to lose?

[nephilim]

Small factoid for everyone...Since 1950, every president that has been voted in has used a war against one country or another. (Gerald Ford was the only president not voted into Vice Presidency and then Presidency, although he did dispatch troops to Cambodia after the war finished)

Truman - Korea
Eisenhower - China (expansion of N/Korea)
Kennedy - Vietnam
Johnson - Vietnam/Cambodia
Nixon - Vietnam/Cambodia/Thailand
Carter - Syria (Shia Militia)
Reagan - Syria (Druze Militia)
GHW Bush - Iraq
Clinton - Bosnia
GW Bush - Iraq/Afghanistan
Obama - Libya

Essentially the US are warmongers and use their constitution as a way of declaring war, without actually declaring war. I do not care who gets voted in, as to be honest, they're as bad as each other (Republicans are the equivalent of Tories, just more religiously based, Democrats are equivalent of Labour, and Tea Party are equivalent to Lib Dems)

[Flatpackhamster]

Small factoid for everyone...Since 1950, every president that has been voted in has used a war against one country or another. (Gerald Ford was the only president not voted into Vice Presidency and then Presidency, although he did dispatch troops to Cambodia after the war finished)

Mmm, but it's not as simple as that, is it:

Truman - Korea

- War against Soviet and Chinese communists

Eisenhower - China (expansion of N/Korea)

War against Chinese communists

Kennedy - Vietnam

War against Chinese and Soviet communists

Johnson - Vietnam/Cambodia

War against Chinese and Soviet communists

Nixon - Vietnam/Cambodia/Thailand

War against Chinese and Soviet communists

Carter - Syria (Shia Militia)

Insurrection against Soviet-planted puppet leader

Reagan - Syria (Druze Militia)

See above

GHW Bush - Iraq

UN-mandated action to liberate Kuwait.

Clinton - Bosnia

UN-mandated action to stop genocide after the collapse of Soviet puppet state. Bit harsh to call this 'warmongering'.

GW Bush - Iraq/Afghanistan

Attempt to push out Iranian/Saudi influence (which backfired horribly) from Iraq.

Obama - Libya

Attempt to create pro-US state to replace collapsed Soviet puppet.

Do you see the pattern here? US and Soviet activities across the globe were intertwined. Practically every conflict you listed was the US and Communist Russia or China going at it through a third party.

Essentially the US are warmongers and use their constitution as a way of declaring war, without actually declaring war.

Essentially, they aren't.

I do not care who gets voted in, as to be honest, they're as bad as each other (Republicans are the equivalent of Tories, just more religiously based, Democrats are equivalent of Labour, and Tea Party are equivalent to Lib Dems)

I don't know who would be more offended by that, the Tea Party or the Lib Dems. And the Democrats are, politically, much closer to the Tories. There's no Republican equivalent in the UK, nor is there a US equivalent to Labour or the Lib Dems.

[rich_tech]

I think whoever wins, doesn't really matter, America is in big trouble economically, their debt isn't really serviceable and America seems too divided over it all to come up with any sort of creditable solution, because their senate / representative houses basically counteract one another at the moment.

It seemed all along that they conspired to make it hard for Obama from the moment he was voted into office, It would be interesting if he got a bit more of a majority this time around when those houses get voted for, to see if he can actually make more effective change.

Obama seems more ideal to me personally than Romney though

[SYNACK]

Does it really matter, its the same evil just wearing different faces.